Lamb v. Almy

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Lamb v. Almy

36 A. 1132, 19 R.I. 586

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedJuly 21, 1896

DocketMiscellaneous Petitions, No. 2405.

StatusPublished

This text of 36 A. 1132 (Lamb v. Almy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lamb v. Almy, 36 A. 1132, 19 R.I. 586 (R.I. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We do not think that it appears with sufficient clearness that Albert A. Baker was counsel for Dr. Lamb, as well as Mrs. Lamb, in the transaction to which the testimony to be taken relates, to warrant the magistrate in compelling Baker to disclose communications made to him by Mrs. Lamb by virtue of the relation between them of counsel and client.

The writ of mandamus is therefore denied and the petition dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

We do not think that it appears with sufficient clearness that Albert A. Baker was counsel for Dr. Lamb, as well as Mrs. Lamb, in the transaction to which the testimony to be taken relates, to warrant the magistrate in compelling Baker to disclose communications made to him by Mrs. Lamb by virtue of the relation between them of counsel and client.

The writ of mandamus is therefore denied and the petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 A. 1132, 19 R.I. 586, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lamb-v-almy-ri-1896.